netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] net-device: Use new helpers from overflow.h in netdevice APIs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 16:56:09 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, Vinod Koul
 <vkoul@...nel.org>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Jonathan
 Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
 Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni
 <pabeni@...hat.com>, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] net-device: Use new helpers from overflow.h in
 netdevice APIs

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 16:01:49 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
> So, I found several cases where struct net_device is included in the
> middle of another structure, which makes my proposal more awkward. But I
> also don't understand why it's in the _middle_. Shouldn't it always be
> at the beginning (with priv stuff following it?)
> Quick search and examined manually: git grep 'struct net_device [a-z0-9_]*;'
> 
> struct rtw89_dev
> struct ath10k
> etc.

Ugh, yes, the (ab)use of NAPI.

> Some even have two included (?)

And some seem to be cargo-culted from out-of-tree code and are unused :S

> But I still like the idea -- Gustavo has been solving these cases with
> having two structs, e.g.:
> 
> struct net_device {
> 	...unchanged...
> };
> 
> struct net_device_alloc {
> 	struct net_device	dev;
> 	u32			priv_size;
> 	u8			priv_data[] __counted_by(priv_size) __aligned(NETDEV_ALIGN);
> };
> 
> And internals can use struct net_device_alloc...

That's... less pretty. I'd rather push the ugly into the questionable
users. Make them either allocate the netdev dynamically and store 
a pointer, or move the netdev to the end of the struct.

But yeah, that's a bit of a cleanup :(